The two problems Congress has when trying to solve Section 230:
Congress was worried about their being an abundance of harmful content online.
Concern was influenced by the Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy case, where an online platform was held liable for its content users.
"Section 230 was purposefully designed to achieve both these ends by providing online platforms with what are ultimately two complementary forms of protection."
The two forms of protection that most people are familiar with:
The one that keeps platforms from being held liable for how users use their systems and services.
This protection does also make it safe for platforms to moderate their services if they choose.
Meaning that:
a.
How are these considered "forms of protection" when they do nothing to minimize harmful activity on their platforms?
- For example, Zuckerberg being in front of Congress multiple times and sued
- Zeran decision led to other lawsuits (i.e. Blumenthal suing AOL in 1998 [Court sided with AOL/Zeran decision]; Carafano v.
Metrosplash.com in 2003 [Court sided with Matchmaker.com/Zeran decision]; Batzel v.
Smith in 2003 [Court sided with Smith & MSM/Zeran decision but w/ partial descent --> editing of content made MSM an active participant instead of passive]) pg. 11-13
Left and Right wing politicians believe that large-scale social media platforms have abused Section 230 and it's power. They also believe that they should lose the rights to Section 230 and be able to earn them back by reaching certain platform benchmarks.
- Section 230 allows for third-party content to be hosted without facing legal or technical backlash, which gives them more privileges than a traditional publisher would normally get.
If it goes away, changes in Section 230 could lead to social media platforms being more cautious about censoring content as exemplified by Craigslist eliminating its personals section, or conversely, abandoning moderation entirely, potentially leading to services dominated by extremist material. These outcomes could have global implications, particularly as other nations are already increasing their regulation of online speech.
Reliable publications include established newspapers, academic journals and books, textbooks, and other published sources with reputations for accuracy and fact-checking.
Unreliable sources include blog posts and other self-published works, press releases, and social media posts.
In order for a source to be considered verifiable, other editors should be able to consult the source.
Is the source independent of the subject?
Is the source connected in any way to the subject? This is especially important when writing biographies or about organizations.
For example, if you were writing a biography, sources like the person's webpage or personal blog would not be considered independent.
Is the source primary or secondary?
Primary sources include first-hand accounts, autobiographies, and other original content.
Wikipedia allows limited use of primary sources, but typically only for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, and only if they are published and verifiable without requiring specialized knowledge.
Secondary sources should be the main basis for a biography on Wikipedia.
If you're working on a topic related to medicine or psychology, ensure that your sources follow these special guidelines.
If you're creating a new article, consider the following:
Ensure that your topic meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
In order for a topic to meet the notability requirement, you must be able to identify 2-3 sources that are reliable, verifiable, and independent of the subject you're writing about.
Finding sufficient sources to establish notability can be especially hard when writing about people or organizations.
Sources that are not independent of the subject might be useful additions, but don't count towards the notability requirement.
Wikipedia has developed special guidelines for writing about living persons. Please follow these carefully.
Wikipedia has a series of guidelines for writing about different categories of people, such as academics and artists. If you're trying to create a new entry about a living person, please look at these carefully.
If you're not sure whether a source is reliable, ask a librarian! If you have questions about Wikipedia's sourcing rules, you can use the Get Help button below to contact your Wikipedia Expert.
Edit this section to compile the bibliography for your Wikipedia assignment. Add the name and/or notes about what each source covers, then use the "Cite" button to generate the citation for that source.
Examples:
Luke, Learie. 2007. Identity and secession in the Caribbean: Tobago versus Trinidad, 1889–1980 Kingston, Jamaica: University of the West Indies Press.
This is a book published by a university press, so it should be a reliable source. It also covers the topic in some depth, so it's helpful in establishing notability.
Galeano, Gloria; Bernal, Rodrigo. 2013. "Sabinaria , a new genus of palms (Cryosophileae, Coryphoideae, Arecaceae) from the Colombia-Panama border". Phytotaxa.
This is a peer-reviewed scientific journal, so it should be a reliable source. It covers the topic in some depth, so it's helpful in establishing notability.
Baker, William J.; Dransfield, John 2016. "Beyond Genera Palmarum: progress and prospects in palm systematics". Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society.
This is a peer-reviewed scientific journal, so it should be a reliable source for a specific fact. Since it only dedicates a few sentences to the topic, it can't be used to establish notability.
Jeff, Kosseff, (2016-12-01). "The Gradual Erosion of the Law That Shaped the Internet: Section 230's Evolution Over Two Decades".
This is a peer reviewed scientific journal, so it should be a reliable source. It also includes a few cases that might be relevant enough to add to the Section 230 Wikipedia article, among other information about how Section 230 has interacted with social media over the last decade.
